Well... no. He insinuates that Homo erectus was acommunal, which is outright absurdity. He also appears to be unaware that most of Homo sapiens sapiens history also incorporates those very same stone tools (which implies via his own argument that for most of our specie's history, we were acommunal).

Also the "literally no one knows how to make a computer mouse" idea is useless. Such a phenomenon has been in existence for millennia. No one person knows how to make a medieval cathedral. No one person at that time knew how to make a medieval cathedral.

Finally his "support staff" line is racist and obscures the actualities and problems of the global neoliberal capitalist regime. He chooses only those tasks likely to be done by whites, save for the coffee, and there he is clearly ignorant of the unjust working conditions, including child labor of the coffee trade.

A much more meaningful analysis of what's going on could be found by analyzing the production of our modern technological goods via actor-network theory or some other STS analysis.

I'll give him one thing: he's clearly not an anthropologist or any other kind of social scientist. He'd be laughed out of his undergraduate courses if he were.

That's the spirit: Why build up when you can tear down... Let us bash our chests in true testosterone filled guerilla rage (ie politics) one to another. Would you agree ibara that for instance a project such any of the BSD's or say wikipedia are too large to be contained within a single cranuim of the taxonomy Hominidae, or would you dispute that as well? And I in like turn give you one thing: The idea he presents is worthy of comsideration. Just as you disagree, I too disagree with you. That's life...

That's the spirit: Why build up when you can tear down... Let us bash our chests in true testosterone filled guerilla rage (ie politics) one to another.

What are you talking about? Criticism is a real thing. Yes, it's important to levy criticism against ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Would you agree ibara that for instance a project such any of the BSD's or say wikipedia are too large to be contained within a single cranuim of the taxonomy Hominidae, or would you dispute that as well?

What are you talking about? You either did not understand what I wrote or deliberately misinterpreting it. I am making the argument that what he said was correct, but not helpful in understanding our current labor situation--which is at the heart of that two minute clip you posted. I also provided better avenues for understanding. It is both critical and constructive: it permits others to see the flaws of an argument and ways of strengthening both the original argument and future arguments by others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

And I in like turn give you one thing: The idea he presents is worthy of comsideration. Just as you disagree, I too disagree with you. That's life...

And I'm making the critique that the idea he's presenting is unworthy of anyone's time. It's a shallow understanding of really important processes, which underscores his lack of training in the social sciences. Potentially, that shallow understanding is dangerous. Notably, he is claiming how "cool" it is that we can produce technological goods for consumption on a mass scale without taking a moment to consider if that process introduces economic and social injustices. If that's his vision of positive social growth, it needs to be pointed out how fundamentally flawed such a naive position is. It is worth someone's time to point that out. (And more succinctly, I'm allowed and able to do it.)

> What are you talking about? You either did not understand what I wrote or deliberately misinterpreting it.

You've extrapolated quite a bit from 2+ minutes of video I posted & neither have you answered the question I asked you. And that is the point. I think criticism is a good thing & I wonder: if you can offer criticism surely you're not suggesting others can not do the same with your replies are you?

I am unable to respond to questions that require me to defend positions I don't hold; that is a matter of decorum. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Would you agree ibara that for instance a project such any of the BSD's or say wikipedia are too large to be contained within a single cranuim of the taxonomy Hominidae, or would you dispute that as well?

Which means that you charge me with disagreeing with the idea that humans cannot hold such a mass of information. I didn't disagree with that idea, I questioned its utility in understanding labor, which, again, was at the center of the two minute video clip. Therefore, I could not respond to your question. It wouldn't make sense for me to answer it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

And that is the point. I think criticism is a good thing & I wonder: if you can offer criticism surely you're not suggesting others can not do the same with your replies are you?

You may certainly critique any idea I put forward. But you need to critique what I actually said. As an academic, that's really the only thing asked.

Barring that, you expose yourself as being a troll. Or, if you feel the charge of troll is exceptionally unfair, you demonstrate inability to thoughtfully and adequately engage with the ideas currently put forward. That's OK. But I cannot do your work for you.

Good grief - in the space of a couple of replies, you have charged academia as being uncaring, me as a troll, & you (still) refuse to answer a simple question: By working together, cant we can accomplish great things? Buddy, take your meds... you seem to 'know it all' its a 2 minute video clip & not much more.

Nowhere did I charge academia with being uncaring. The idea that criticism against someone must be something that properly characterizes that person isn't uncaring, it's very much the opposite. As for you being a troll, well, your behavior has left a lot to be desired. While you may not be a troll in Whitney Phillips's subcultural sense, telling someone that they need to "take their meds," continuing to whine about criticism with which you disagree, and routinely mischaracterizing another's argument is not generally the hallmark of conversing in good faith.

I am genuinely willing to accept that you do not fully understand the issues being discussed here. But then again, the reply really isn't "for" you: public performance of disagreement is mostly about the performative aspect, and is for the benefit of the audience. I want those reading to have an understanding of why the video presents a potentially dangerous world view. I would say I have mostly succeeded in doing so.

To answer your most recent question, which you have now asked for only the first time: Yes, but not at the expense of grave economic and social injustice because that is a dangerous way of thinking. That is the point that the speaker in the video has clearly missed, and the point I have now made multiple times. Again, your question would force me to uphold an opinion I do not hold. And even if I did, your question is irrelevant to what I am saying.

While you are entitled to continue your whining, I am not obliged to treat it as worthwhile. Just like I am not obliged to take the argument in that video as worthwhile.

I cannot watch YouTube, so cannot comment on this particular video. However, being an anthropologist, two minutes is more than enough for me to discern if the other person knows what he or she is taking about. Just as, I am sure, you would very quickly know if someone was bullshitting about computers. Given ibara's description of the video's contents, his criticism appears correct.

__________________
I am always right.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

There is a ton I could say about Peter Joseph. His ideas reminde me of the book (and movie) A Brave New World.

With Jesse Ventura on "Off the Grid", Peter stated that change was coming one way or another. He implies that the suffering met by being forced into change could be avoided if we instead chose the change before it was the only option.

I can't defend Peter since I really don't know him. I can say that great claims made in the span of two minutes are not likely to make a full disclosure of an opinion's level of integrity. If I told people that everyone was the center of their own universe, some might argue that their children or spouse were actually the center of his/her universe. A little bit more time might be needed to clearly point out that they are the ones that chose that preoccupation "for themselves". Their childern or spouse have no acting power at that center.

I think you will invariably find a statement, on complex subject matter, very misleading when it is vaguely expressed. If you are a lawyer or politicion you can take great advantage of this. The question might be, "Is Peter taking advantage of this?". In the same breath if there was some value to Peter's claims, he has left them wide open to slander by not defining in an absolute (or absolute as possible) fashion. I don't doubt that Peter himself would agree with some of the arguments based on the incomplete anaylsis his statements provide space for. In a more detailed expossition he could probably show that his point(s) had validity excusing the multitude of data not expressed. I should add that he does provide lengthy documents at no charge for those that would like to build up a case against him.

It might have been better to say that a small percentage of the mass can build a mouse. I think his point is that the mentality of the mass is to follow trends designed for by the expotation of basic human psychology. Another way of saying it is that we are consumers because that is the intentionally set nature of the environment that has programmed our drives. No one knowing how to make a mouse is like know one knowing how to swim in the book (and movie) "The Time Machine".

The issue he points out is an old one. Designed common interest creates cohesion. Common intreset based on consumption is continuous and developable cohesion. A really simple way to look at it is a hamster wheel. The claim in this case is that when the hamster wheel locks up it will take the ecosystem with it. Another claim is that the bigger hamsters guard the food dish while the little guys have to run the wheel. And its true that the little guy shouldn't have to run the wheel so hard when there is enough food in the dish for everyone. If you take the hamster wheel out of the cage, humanity is face to face with the fact that it is in a cage. Out of necessity human psychology adapts to its new circumstance and eventually the newly attained balance starts looking like oppression. After enough generations pass by, capitalism will rise from the ashes of balanced community until again it must burn out and become the oppressor. I'm not saying that all persons in a balanced community will want more for doing nothing. Just that eventually the ones that can see the oppertunity will eventually take it and sell everyone else to dream of its attainability. Those that don't want dream have to come along anyway or the wheel will run them over.

Both the fictinal books I've mentioned are written by men well versed on this subject in relation to history and the human race.

I don't doubt that Peter himself would agree with some of the arguments based on the incomplete anaylsis his statements provide space for. In a more detailed expossition he could probably show that his point(s) had validity excusing the multitude of data not expressed.

Then why bother with a two-minute video that can only touch the surface? Make a longer video that can cover the topic in sufficient detail. A short headline that can be easily misinterpreted or twisted by rivals is harmful to one's opinion or work. The usual purpose of such publications, whether in print or videos, is not to demonstrate the soundness of an idea, but rather to convince the ignorant the idea is true. (This is of course a general statement. I am not referring to the video in question.)

Quote:

Have you tried youtube-dl? It is an installable package.

It is banned where I live, so working around the censorship would be more trouble than it is worth. After all, it is only YouTube.

__________________
I am always right.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Also the "literally no one knows how to make a computer mouse" idea is useless. Such a phenomenon has been in existence for millennia. No one person knows how to make a medieval cathedral. No one person at that time knew how to make a medieval cathedral.

'It takes an entire civilization to build a toaster. Designer Thomas Thwaites found out the hard way, by attempting to build one from scratch: mining ore for steel, deriving plastic from oil ... it's frankly amazing he got as far as he got. A parable of our interconnected society, for designers and consumers alike.'more...

Then why bother with a two-minute video that can only touch the surface? Make a longer video that can cover the topic in sufficient detail. A short headline that can be easily misinterpreted or twisted by rivals is harmful to one's opinion or work. The usual purpose of such publications, whether in print or videos, is not to demonstrate the soundness of an idea, but rather to convince the ignorant the idea is true. (This is of course a general statement. I am not referring to the video in question.)

I would imagine that the desired audience has a short attention span. If you're trying to promote education, where it is needed the most, this could be a good thing. If you're trying to take advantage of gullibility then its the ussual thing.

Quote:

It is banned where I live, so working around the censorship would be more trouble than it is worth. After all, it is only YouTube.

Who here will give up (say) two meals a week, not offer chump change to a charity mind you, but shed some of your belly fat to see that those malnourished rats running circles in place can eat more? But wait I cant! For I must tweet & post about these problems using the same device they built... Oh the horror! Maybe pay your brown-skinned stoop labor $10.USD per hr to pick your vegetables? Naw, I'm too busy trying to impress the 'troll'. Here's another... stay after work all week & help that dark skinned janitor? Eww... dont wanna get my hands dirty. Talk the talk, or walk the talk fellas? None of us here could build a mouse & thats the flat out truth. You might not like it, but that's life. Now then, you be sure to reply using an OS you built, on a computer you built (from scratch) yourselves. Noam Chomsky will chime in after his book tour is over to help the poor & unwashed.

Who here will give up (say) two meals a week, not offer chump change to a charity mind you, but shed some of your belly fat to see that those malnourished rats running circles in place can eat more?

This is both disgusting and offensive. It has no place here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

But wait I cant! For I must tweet & post about these problems using the same device they built... Oh the horror!

You do realize that structural problems require multifaceted responses, right? There is a benefit to "tweet & post" about these issues. Perhaps you should learn some social theory. Here's a famous article about the sociological concept of translation, which is in part one reason one ought to engage in social media.

Careful, your racism is showing. You also make the odd assumption that doing one activity (posting on a web forum) precludes one from engaging with other activities (social justice, specifically one aspect of economic justice). Which is a silly thing to say, because that is obviously untrue. I can use myself as an example. I am deeply embedded in social justice work (specifically, education and teachers) and yet I have time to write this post.

By the way, $10 isn't enough: that's not a living wage. I'd argue that a minimum wage of around $20 would be more just. Couple that with true universal healthcare, and we'd actually be able to support all people in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Naw, I'm too busy trying to impress the 'troll'.

Aww... you're so cute sometimes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Here's another... stay after work all week & help that dark skinned janitor? Eww... dont wanna get my hands dirty.

Not all janitors are black. Again, you're just showcasing your racism.
But hey, I agree that janitors need help. A great way to help out is to support SEIU, the international union for service employees: http://www.seiu.org/

We need higher union enrollment to ensure that they can act as a single unit of power. Maybe where you work they hire non-union workers? Petition management to only hire union workers, and get the current janitors into the union. Yup, that's hard and dirty work. But you'll be an infinitely better person for having done so. And, just maybe, you'll learn a thing or two about the human beings you're helping.

None of us here could build a mouse & thats the flat out truth. You might not like it, but that's life.

Now here's the part that you have failed to grasp: no one who replied to this thread argued otherwise. What has been questioned, and I will repeat it again, is accepting that this is true, what does that knowledge actually afford us? The framing provided by Matt Ridley provides us nothing, because he uses it to demonstrate how "cool" it is, implicitly defends the current status quo of excessive neoliberal capitalism, and makes a very naive scaffolding of "support staff" when in reality he greatly benefits from gross economic and social injustices, which he clearly is either totally blind to or doesn't care to address. This sort of view reinforces dominant power and structural inequities and I believe must be challenged.

Now, if you wanted to invoke Audre Lorde's famous essay The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House as a way of saying "hey, when you engage in social justice via the Internet all you're doing is using the master's tools" you could potentially have an interesting point. I would disagree vehemently and point to the last paragraph of that speech: "Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices." to point out what she's really arguing is that we must resist internalizing the fear of difference, and therefore taking social justice to the "tweet & post" actually helps break down that fear both in ourselves and others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Now then, you be sure to reply using an OS you built, on a computer you built (from scratch) yourselves.

Again, I will point out that no one is arguing that we did or could build an entire OS or computer by ourselves. Continually claiming that people have when it has now been pointed out to you multiple times that is untrue makes you wilfully ignorant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike-Sanders

Noam Chomsky will chime in after his book tour is over to help the poor & unwashed.

Doubtful. He, like most of us involved in this kind of work, have to trust that we do all we can and there are others doing all they can working in areas we cannot.